PER CURIAM: Pedro Antunez-Galarza appeals his conviction, following entry of a guilty plea, for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). 1 He argues for the first time on appeal that § 922(g)(1) violates the Commerce Clause 2 and is therefore unconstitutional both facially and as applied. ^[3] He acknowledges, however, that his Commerce Clause challenges are squarely foreclosed by our binding precedent, and he seeks only to preserve the arguments for further review. Because his claims are foreclosed by precedent, we affirm. We have repeatedly upheld § 922(g)(1) against facial and as-applied challenges based on the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, 142 F.4th 1270, 1285 (11th Cir. 2025) (explaining that we have repeatedly upheld § 922(g)(1) against facial and as-applied challenges under the Commerce Clause and collecting cases), cert. denied, 2025 WL 3507078 (U.S. Dec. 8, 2025); United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001) (same). We are bound by those decisions. See United States v. White, 837 F.3d 1225, 1229 (11th Cir. 2016) (“[W]e are bound to follow a prior binding precedent unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court.” (quotations omitted)). Accordingly, Antunez-Galarza cannot show plain error, and we affirm. AFFIRMED.